Re: Kosovo paradigms

On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Kevin J. West wrote:

> Richard,
> I agree that we must critically examine actions taken in the name of
> humanitarianism, and we should be doing so in this instance. But let's also be
> wary of the sweeping historical statements.  You say that great powers always
> act in great powers' interest and never in the interest of suffering humanity.
> It sounds like a universal covering law.   But if that were the case,  would
> power ever change hands?  


Well of course some systems theorists, world-system and otherwise, would
say for the most part, no.  And in the rare instances that it does, it
tends not to be through institutional means.


And there would never be any evidence of any real
> humanitarianism to counter pose against the phony, self serving
> "humanitarianism" that some believe the US is putting forth purely for
> propaganda purposes.?


Of course there is -- there are plenty of people and organizations other
than great power governments.


> 
> Great powers and small powers and both are made up of people who have many
> interests, often competing, and they often don't know what in the hell to do
> to resolve them, especially at times like this.  I imagine that at least some
> of them listen to their constituency, and look to their own moral code for
> answers.   I would employ this as my operating asssumption.


This sounds like wishful individualist thinking to me.  Consider how long
a U.S. president would last if he seriously bucked big money interests.
Individuals and their personal moral codes are constrained by the
institutional structures they inhabit.  The real world is of course much
messier than any theory's predictions, but I don't think it's nearly
as random as you seem to think.  Even World War II, widely seen as a great
moral crusade by the U.S., is revealed to have been power politics
("Imperial Brain Trust", Monthly Review Press, 1977):  the U.S. entered
the war against the Axis not to fight Hitler, but to make sure that it
controlled the Pacific, and not Japan.  

RH


> 
> 
> Richard N Hutchinson wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Kevin J. West wrote:
> >
> > > Some discussants on the Kosovo crisis have tried to link the NATO action
> > > to a larger, Western geopolitical agenda of expanding political and
> > > economic hegemony.  Making this link has generally involved the
> > > torturing of reason.  For example, though the violent conflict that has
> >
> > It is true that some particular versions seem to be nothing more than
> > cobbled together conspiracy theories.  But as opposed to the below
> > argument (knee-jerk anti-imperialism), it seems clear to me that the
> > overwhelming tendency is knee-jerk "taking humanitarianism at face value."
> >
> > It does not require any conspiratorial attitude or slavish adherence to
> > leftist doctrine to see, based on the historical record, that great powers
> > act in great powers' interests, not on behalf of suffering humanity.
> > This should be the operating assumption until proven otherwise, not the
> > reverse.
> >
> 
> 
> 
>